Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/08/10) */
As Compliance Attorney at [redacted] & [redacted], LLC, I have reviewed Ms. [redacted]'s complaint and investigated the allegations contained therein. Ms. [redacted] was sent a demand letter on July 21, 2015. The demand letter indicates the original...
creditor in this matter was CitiFinancial, and the debt is for an account ending in 2141. The current creditor in this matter is CVI Loan GT Trust I. Our firm has had no communication with Ms. [redacted] since the demand letter was sent. Upon receipt of Ms. [redacted]'s complaint we marked the account as disputed and sent validation of the debt on August 5, 2015. The validation letter includes copies of the original loan agreement and billing statements for the account. [redacted] and [redacted] LLC prides itself on compliance with all local and federal rules and regulations. We sincerely hope the documentation provided to Ms. [redacted] will sufficiently clarify the nature of the matter which we are pursuing. In addition, we encourage Ms. [redacted] to contact directly to discuss further resolution of this matter.
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com Complaint. M&J received Mr. [redacted]’ file for collection on December 13, 2016. On behalf of our client [redacted], M&J issued suit against Mr. [redacted] and served him with...
a Summons and Complaint January 26, 2017. On March 1,2017, Mr. [redacted] entered into a settlement agreement for $569.31 to be paid in monthly installments of $50.00. Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] made his final payment on December 1, 2017. On December 4, 2017 the file was closed back to the client as settled in full. Mr. [redacted] claims that his payments were not remitted to our client. However, upon review of the account I have determined that the payments made were remitted to our client. Additionally, upon the filing of the herein complaint, M&J reached out to our client to confirm receipt of payment. The client has confirmed that the account has been closed as settled in full. Our firm has also issued a letter to Mr. [redacted] for his records stating that account has been settled in full.
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed and investigated Mr. [redacted] complaint. Our Compliance Department took the following steps to investigate the consumer’s complaint: Reviewed the statements by Mr. [redacted] and the underlying file.Reviewed the...
complaint with our client. Issued verification of the debt. M&J is a law firm with licensed attorneys in the State of Washington. This account was placed with our office for collections on October 20, 2017. Our firm sent an initial demand on October 27, 2017. Our firm issued a Summons and Complaint for service in accordance with all applicable rules and procedures and Mr. [redacted] was served on January 8, 2018. Pursuant CR 4 and CR 5, the State of Washington is a serve first state and the action is not filed until after service is accomplished. Upon receipt of Mr. [redacted]’s dispute our firm issued documentation in support of the debt. Additionally, this matter has been closed back to the client for further review. Machol and Johannes LLC prides itself on compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. We encourage Mr. [redacted] to reach out to the client directly for further information as to the status of his account.
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaint. In his complaint, the consumer states he has no recollection of the account place with our office for collection. Thus, we have sent verification of the debt to the consumer in an attempt to...
resolve his dispute. Additionally, the consumer states that our firm refused to work with him when he contacted our company. Finally the consumer states that the account representative was rude and hung up on him. I have reviewed the call in question and found that the account representative offered a reduced settlement amount on the debt in question which the consumer refused. I did not find that account representative was rude to the consumer nor did the account representative hang up on the consumer. Pursuant to my review, it appears that Machol and Johannes has acted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and appropriately at all times.
emailed a proposed stipulation to [redacted] for her signature. She returned a picture image, but did not return the actual documentation required for filing. We would ask that [redacted] re-print the stipulation sign and return that document for filing in order to resolve her case.
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed and investigated the consumer [redacted]’s complaint. In his Complaint, Mr. [redacted] states that he was garnished without proper service and the garnishment caused him financial hardship. Our Compliance Department...
took the following steps to investigate the consumer’s complaint: Reviewed the claims made by the consumer and the consumer’s file.Reviewed the underlying service of the case with the process server.Issued a bank garnishment release. Mr. [redacted] was served with a Summons and Complaint on April 19, 2016 at[redacted]. After the herein complaint was submitted M&J contacted the process server regarding the service dispute. The process server confirmed the service. After review of Mr. [redacted]’s lease documentation it appears that the service location was leased during the service time period. After judgment entered on January 27, 2017, M&J issued a garnishment. Writs of Garnishment are not served upon defendants, so Mr. [redacted] would not have been served with this documentation. Machol and Johannes LLC prides itself on compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Upon review, I have determined that M&J acted in accordance with all applicable laws in this action. However, in consideration of the hardship Mr. [redacted] experienced due to the bank garnishment levied against his funds, are office agreed to issue a release of funds. M&J is willing to discuss resolution options with Mr. [redacted] and encourage him to reach out to our firm to avoid further collection.
As Compliance Officer at Machol & Johannes, LLC, I have reviewed Ms. [redacted]’s complaint and investigated the allegations contained therein. Ms. [redacted] is a non-party to an account placed with our firm for collection. As stated in her complaint, Ms. [redacted] received a satisfaction of judgment...
in previous case that involved her and the consumer pursued by my office. However, that satisfaction of judgment pertained to Ms. [redacted] only. Thus, the judgment was never satisfied as the second party. Nonetheless, our office has suspended collections on the outstanding judgment, and closed the file back to our client for further investigation.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com Complaint. The consumer’s account was placed in our office June 17, 2015 and has remained open in our office since it was placed for collection. Our office issued a lawsuit and served the consumer...
with a Summons and Complaint March 7, 2017. The consumer failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and judgment entered against her in favor of our client on April 21, 2017. On April 28, 2017 the consumer contacted our office stating that she was paying another entity for the file in our office. We asked her to provide documentation demonstrating her claims, however, she failed to provide any documentation for our review. Upon receipt of the herein compliant we confirmed with our client that the account has not been placed with another agency and has not been sold. In order to investigate further we would ask the consumer provide us documentation related to the account and entity she believes was paid for this account. Any documentation can be sent to Machol and Johannes LLC at [redacted] or faxed to [redacted].
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com Complaint. The consumer states that he financed a vehicle for his spouse and his brother co-signed for the loan. The consumer has since separated from his spouse. The consumer obtained a...
separation agreement in which his ex-spouse agreed to make payments on the loan. However, pursuant to [redacted], [redacted], “The trial court has jurisdiction to enter orders only as between the parties and cannot affect the rights of a third-party creditor.” See [redacted], [redacted] (court can apportion tax liabilities between the parties even though collection efforts by the Internal Revenue Service would be joint and several). As our firm’s client was not a party to the consumer's dissolution proceedings, our client’s rights were not affected by Defendant’s dissolution proceedings. Thus, Defendant remains liable for the debt. We encourage the consumer to contact us directly to discuss how we may further assist in resolution of this matter.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/11/09) */
As a Compliance Attorney for [redacted] and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer's Revdex.com Complaint. Our firm properly served the consumer with a Summons and Complaint on April 10th 2008 by leaving the Summons and Complaint with a...
family member over the age of 18 at the consumer's usual place of abode. The manner of service is allowable under Colorado State law. The consumer failed to file an Answer and judgment entered May 12 2008. The judgment was for $5,376.61 with interest to accrue at the contractual rate of 18%. During this time period, we received multiple phone calls from the consumer, but he failed to set up any payment arrangements or make any payments on the account. Consumer made no voluntary payments on the debt and as the judgment remained unsatisfied our office sought to have the judgment revived. Our office served the consumer with the request for reviver of judgment on April 17, 2014. On April 24, 2014, the consumer filed an objection to our request. A hearing was scheduled on the matter. The consumer then withdrew his objection and agreed to set up payments on the judgment. Our office agreed to accept $50.00 a month on the judgment in exchange for ceasing further collection activity. The consumer failed to make timely payments and stopped making payments altogether after February 19, 2015. Thus, a garnishment was properly served in this matter after default on the part of the consumer on June 23, 2015. Since the issuing of the garnishment our staff has explained that the consumer is not eligible for a reduction of debt or garnishment at this time. However, our firm prides itself on reaching amicable solutions with consumers. Thus, our firm has agreed to review the consumer's financial situation after six months of receiving steady payments. We encourage the consumer to reach out to us again at that time.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/11/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The statement about leaving the summons with a family member is incorrect and a lie. During the time in question I lived alone in a secure building to only I had the code where I could only let people in from my cell phone answering the buzz and I am the only one who has access to my phone. This means that they illegally entered my place of residence. Again, I asked the firm if they would garnish me fot S500 a month and they declined. The consequences I have to suffer? I have someone else supporting my child and xant afford to pay my other bills.
This company is worse than the IRS.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2015/11/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I did not have an opportunity to dispute the original service. What this firm did was to garnish my wages first and then in court, after garnishing my paycheck asked me if I wanted to dispute. They told me that my check would continue to be garnished until I agreed to a payment plan. So I agreed just to get the garnishment lifted which they did. So for lack of better words I was forced to make a payment plan and then they reimbursed me what they garnished and I have proof of this as well. The firm sent me a check for what they garnished..
Again, I was never served and was conived into getting on a plan.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/12/01) */
I have reviewed the consumer's file, and as previously stated the consumer filed an objection to our request for reviver of judgment on April 24, 2014. In his objection he objected to the original service of the action. A hearing was scheduled on the matter based off his objection. Therefore, the consumer did have an opportunity to dispute the service at the hearing set on this matter. Rather the consumer chose to withdraw his objection and set up payments on the judgment. This agreement was effectuated in open court, the consumer freely entered into the agreement. As the consumer's wage garnishment is set to expire this month, I encourage him to contact our office directly to make voluntary arrangements on the judgment.
As the Compliance Attorney for Machol & Johannes, LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed [redacted] complaint and investigated the allegations therein. Ms. [redacted] alleges that she was served while she was engaged in an active payment arrangement. Further, Ms. [redacted] claims that M&J...
has been rude and unresponsive to her. Response: LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) is the current owner of the account relevant to this complaint. On September 22, 2016, LVNV placed the account for collection with M&J and the internal account number assigned is [redacted]. M&J sent the consumer an initial demand letter on September 27, 2016. In November of 2016, M&J and the consumer engaged in negotiations regarding the subject debt. On or about December 21, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to pay towards the balance in monthly installments. The consumer began making monthly payments as per terms of the agreement until she defaulted on December 10, 2017. Per the terms of the agreement, if the consumer defaulted, no notice of nonpayment would be sent before M&J continued pursuit of the debt. Thus, suit was filed in Denver County Court, State of Colorado, Case No. 18C53365 and service was effected on February 3, 2018. On February 23, 2018, the agent assigned to Ms. [redacted] account left her a voicemail message. There is no indication in our records that M&J received a call from the consumer on February 28, 2018 as alleged. On March 9, 2018, M&J received an inbound call from the consumer during which she asked to speak with her assigned agent and the call was transferred to his voicemail. Our records do not support the consumer’s contention that M&J was unresponsive or rude to her. On March 9, 2018, M&J received the final payment satisfying the payment agreement and the account was closed. Further, a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice was filed with the Court on March 14, 2018. Thank you.
As the Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed [redacted] complaint and investigated the allegations therein. Ms. [redacted] alleges that she requested validation of debt (“VOD”) on multiple occasions but M&J has been unresponsive. Moreover, Ms....
[redacted] states that phone number she has for M&J goes straight to a message stating the number is unavailable. Ms. [redacted] states that she received a settlement letter from M&J while her bank account is actively being garnished. Response: Discover Bank (“DB”) is the current owner of the judgment account relevant to this complaint. On June 17, 2015, the DB placed the judgment account for collection with M&J and the internal account number assigned is [redacted]. M&J filed a substitution of counsel in the Teller County Court, State of Colorado, Case No. [redacted] and sent an initial notice letter to the consumer including the substitution of counsel information on August 18, 2015. On August 27, 2015, M&J received a written dispute via facsimile from the consumer requesting validation of debt (“VOD”). On that same date, M&J notated the disputed status of the account and placed collection activity on hold. On September 15, 2015, M&J sent VOD with a copy of the Court entered judgment in accordance with her request. Please note that M&J never received a subsequent dispute or request for VOD. On September 23, 2016, M&J filed a Motion for Revivor of Judgment. The consumer was served with a Notice to Show Caused why the Judgment should not be revived. The consumer filed a response thereto on October 27, 2016 opposing the Motion and the Court set a hearing on the matter for December 8, 2016. The consumer failed to appear and the Court reresvived the judgment. Since the judgment was revived, M&J has made several garnishment attempts but they were all unsuccessful and M&J has not received any funds towards the balance of the account to date. On February 4, 2018, as mentioned in the consumer’s complaint, M&J sent the consumer a settlement offer letter, but it has not been in contact with the consumer directly. M&J encourages the consumer to contact the agent handling her account, [redacted], directly at (303)302-6429. Re: [redacted], Rhonda – Second Round, LP Second Round, LP (“SR”) is the current owner of the account relevant to this complaint. On June 13, 2014, the former owner of the account Stellar Recovery, Inc. placed the account for collection with M&J and the internal account number assigned is 50401203. M&J sent the consumer an initial demand letter on June 16, 2014. On June 25, 2014, M&J received a written dispute letter from the consumer requesting VOD. On that same date, M&J notated the disputed status of the account and placed collection activity on hold. On July 3, 2014, M&J sent a letter in response to the consumer in accordance with her request. . Suit was then filed against the consumer in Teller County Court, State of Colorado, Case No. 2014C30206 on July 25, 2014 and service was effected on August 12, 2014. The consumer failed to answer, appear or otherwise respond to the lawsuit. Thus, on October 29, 2014, the Court granted default judgment against the consumer in the amount of $4,549.04, plus statutory post-judgment interest at a rate of 8% per annum. Since the judgment was obtained, M&J has made several garnishment attempts but they were all unsuccessful and M&J has not received any funds towards the balance of the account to date. M&J filed a motion with the Court on behalf of SR to substitute plaintiff. The motion went unopposed and the Court granted the motion on October 6, 2016. There is no indication in our records that M&J sent the consumer a settlement letter in relation to this account, but we encourage the consumer to contact her accounts agent, Dudley Witt, to discuss payment options at (303)302-6426. Further, there is no indication in our notes that the consumer has ever sent a request for VOD or dispute other than the initial dispute received on June 25, 2014. Please feel free to contact me if you should have any additional concerns.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the debt collector in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
The debt collector has labeled the false inquiries as disputed, therefore, they must provide verification of the alleged debt and judgment for my review. I continue to claim the debt collector is in violation of FDCPA regulation.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaint. The consumer claims that our firm is double-charging him for his student loans, as his Federal Student Loans have been consolidated and he denies taking any private student loans. Shortly...
after his accounts were placed with our office, Mr. [redacted] called our office on September 9, 2015 to discuss a payment plan or settlement. He was informed of the approved monthly or lump sum payment options. However, he did not follow up to make an arrangement. As no agreement was reached, we verified the balance with our client and our office determined that the account was appropriate for suit. On November 8, 2015, Mr. [redacted] was personally served with suit. He contacted our office after the service and entered into a Court Ordered Stipulation for a monthly payment plan; he has since made timely monthly payments. Mr. [redacted] contacted our office on April 20, 2016, and indicated that he received calls from a third party agency regarding the student loans that he is paying with our office. Mr. [redacted] sent in documentation from the third party agency, but our office determined the documentation was for different loans. Pursuant to his dispute and request for documentation, our firm sent a letter in verification of debt, including a signed copy of the original loan request. Pursuant to my review, it appears that Machol and Johannes has acted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. However, I encourage Mr. [redacted] to contact us directly if there is anything further our office can provide in resolution of this matter.
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaint. In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] complained that our firm issued a garnishment that has caused her financial hardship. Additionally, she states that the firm has been non-responsive to her...
complaints. She has requested the funds returned to her and asks for the balance owed. Judgment entered against Ms. [redacted] on September 17, 2010. On or around January 26, 2011 Ms. [redacted] entered into a payment arrangement with Machol and Johannes. However, she defaulted on her agreement in November, 2011 when she ceased making payments on the account. On September 11, 2015 our office issued another payment agreement to Ms. [redacted]. She made a single payment on the agreement and again ceased making payments on the file. On July 22, 2017, as Ms. [redacted] had failed to make reasonable efforts on the account our office revived the judgment against Ms. [redacted]. On December 29, 2017, we served a lawful garnishment to Ms. [redacted]’s bank. After the garnishment, we attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] by phone. Ms. [redacted] has requested that we speak to her via email. However, the account representative’s ability to communicate via email are limited. Nonetheless, we were able to issue Ms. [redacted] a statement as to her current balance. Additionally, if she wishes to set up another voluntary arrangement she may do so by reaching out our office directly.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
As the Compliance Attorney for Machol and [redacted] LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed [redacted] complaint and investigated the allegations therein. Mr. [redacted] alleges M&J auto-deducted two payments in lieu of the one final agreed upon payment resolving the account in full. ...
Further, Mr. [redacted] claims he has attempted to contact someone to issue a refund but has been unable to establish communication with his agent at M&J. Response: [redacted], (USA), N.A. (“[redacted]”) is the current owner of the account relevant to this complaint. On July 13, 2012, [redacted] placed the account for collection with M&J and the internal account number assigned is [redacted]. M&J sent the consumer an initial demand letter on July 16, 2012. Suit was then filed against the consumer in Arapahoe-Littleton County Court, State of Colorado, Case No. [redacted] on January 3, 2013 and service was effected on January 16, 2013. M&J and the consumer began negotiations and a stipulation for judgment upon default was executed on February 15, 2013. A copy of the signed stipulation is attached for your review. M&J received the final payment resolving the account in full on February 15, 2018. Inadvertently, two payments were taken out of the consumer’s bank on February 15, 2018. The consumer disputed the second payment with her financial institution and it debited the funds from M&J’s bank account on February 23, 2018. The funds were promptly returned electronically to the consumer. The account is now closed and a paid in full letter was sent to the consumer. Please feel free to contact me if you should have any additional concerns.
I am rejecting this response because: It seems that Macholls and Johannes does not want to resolve this situation. Macholls and Johannes did contact me by email. They said that they want a financial statement filled out before they will submit our settlement offer to their client. I am disappointed that they have not yet submitted our offer to their client (we have made three separate settlement offers dating back to March 2016) and I am disappointed that they rejected arbitration through the Revdex.com. We attended a free legal clinic offered through the district court where Macholls and Johannes filed suit against us this week. The attorney that we spoke with advised us that Macholls and Johannes does not want to resolve this situation, that is why they ignore settlement offers, and attempts to find a mutually agreeable solution through arbitration with the Revdex.com. We have a follow up appointment with the attorney that we met with this week scheduled on January 25th. At this time we will formally retain legal counsel and file motions with the court. My sincere hope remains that Macholls and Johannes will make a real effort to resolve this matter. I also remain hopeful that they will consider arbitration through the Revdex.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/08/10) */
As Compliance Attorney at [redacted] & [redacted], LLC, I have reviewed Ms. [redacted]'s complaint and investigated the allegations contained therein. Ms. [redacted] was sent a demand letter on July 21, 2015. The demand letter indicates the original...
creditor in this matter was CitiFinancial, and the debt is for an account ending in 2141. The current creditor in this matter is CVI Loan GT Trust I. Our firm has had no communication with Ms. [redacted] since the demand letter was sent. Upon receipt of Ms. [redacted]'s complaint we marked the account as disputed and sent validation of the debt on August 5, 2015. The validation letter includes copies of the original loan agreement and billing statements for the account. [redacted] and [redacted] LLC prides itself on compliance with all local and federal rules and regulations. We sincerely hope the documentation provided to Ms. [redacted] will sufficiently clarify the nature of the matter which we are pursuing. In addition, we encourage Ms. [redacted] to contact directly to discuss further resolution of this matter.
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com Complaint. M&J received Mr. [redacted]’ file for collection on December 13, 2016. On behalf of our client [redacted], M&J issued suit against Mr. [redacted] and served him with...
a Summons and Complaint January 26, 2017. On March 1,2017, Mr. [redacted] entered into a settlement agreement for $569.31 to be paid in monthly installments of $50.00. Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] made his final payment on December 1, 2017. On December 4, 2017 the file was closed back to the client as settled in full. Mr. [redacted] claims that his payments were not remitted to our client. However, upon review of the account I have determined that the payments made were remitted to our client. Additionally, upon the filing of the herein complaint, M&J reached out to our client to confirm receipt of payment. The client has confirmed that the account has been closed as settled in full. Our firm has also issued a letter to Mr. [redacted] for his records stating that account has been settled in full.
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed and investigated Mr. [redacted] complaint. Our Compliance Department took the following steps to investigate the consumer’s complaint: Reviewed the statements by Mr. [redacted] and the underlying file.Reviewed the...
complaint with our client. Issued verification of the debt. M&J is a law firm with licensed attorneys in the State of Washington. This account was placed with our office for collections on October 20, 2017. Our firm sent an initial demand on October 27, 2017. Our firm issued a Summons and Complaint for service in accordance with all applicable rules and procedures and Mr. [redacted] was served on January 8, 2018. Pursuant CR 4 and CR 5, the State of Washington is a serve first state and the action is not filed until after service is accomplished. Upon receipt of Mr. [redacted]’s dispute our firm issued documentation in support of the debt. Additionally, this matter has been closed back to the client for further review. Machol and Johannes LLC prides itself on compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. We encourage Mr. [redacted] to reach out to the client directly for further information as to the status of his account.
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaint. In his complaint, the consumer states he has no recollection of the account place with our office for collection. Thus, we have sent verification of the debt to the consumer in an attempt to...
resolve his dispute. Additionally, the consumer states that our firm refused to work with him when he contacted our company. Finally the consumer states that the account representative was rude and hung up on him. I have reviewed the call in question and found that the account representative offered a reduced settlement amount on the debt in question which the consumer refused. I did not find that account representative was rude to the consumer nor did the account representative hang up on the consumer. Pursuant to my review, it appears that Machol and Johannes has acted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and appropriately at all times.
On September 1, 2017 our office...
emailed a proposed stipulation to [redacted] for her signature. She returned a picture image, but did not return the actual documentation required for filing. We would ask that [redacted] re-print the stipulation sign and return that document for filing in order to resolve her case.
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed and investigated the consumer [redacted]’s complaint. In his Complaint, Mr. [redacted] states that he was garnished without proper service and the garnishment caused him financial hardship. Our Compliance Department...
took the following steps to investigate the consumer’s complaint: Reviewed the claims made by the consumer and the consumer’s file.Reviewed the underlying service of the case with the process server.Issued a bank garnishment release. Mr. [redacted] was served with a Summons and Complaint on April 19, 2016 at[redacted]. After the herein complaint was submitted M&J contacted the process server regarding the service dispute. The process server confirmed the service. After review of Mr. [redacted]’s lease documentation it appears that the service location was leased during the service time period. After judgment entered on January 27, 2017, M&J issued a garnishment. Writs of Garnishment are not served upon defendants, so Mr. [redacted] would not have been served with this documentation. Machol and Johannes LLC prides itself on compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Upon review, I have determined that M&J acted in accordance with all applicable laws in this action. However, in consideration of the hardship Mr. [redacted] experienced due to the bank garnishment levied against his funds, are office agreed to issue a release of funds. M&J is willing to discuss resolution options with Mr. [redacted] and encourage him to reach out to our firm to avoid further collection.
As Compliance Officer at Machol & Johannes, LLC, I have reviewed Ms. [redacted]’s complaint and investigated the allegations contained therein. Ms. [redacted] is a non-party to an account placed with our firm for collection. As stated in her complaint, Ms. [redacted] received a satisfaction of judgment...
in previous case that involved her and the consumer pursued by my office. However, that satisfaction of judgment pertained to Ms. [redacted] only. Thus, the judgment was never satisfied as the second party. Nonetheless, our office has suspended collections on the outstanding judgment, and closed the file back to our client for further investigation.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com Complaint. The consumer’s account was placed in our office June 17, 2015 and has remained open in our office since it was placed for collection. Our office issued a lawsuit and served the consumer...
with a Summons and Complaint March 7, 2017. The consumer failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and judgment entered against her in favor of our client on April 21, 2017. On April 28, 2017 the consumer contacted our office stating that she was paying another entity for the file in our office. We asked her to provide documentation demonstrating her claims, however, she failed to provide any documentation for our review. Upon receipt of the herein compliant we confirmed with our client that the account has not been placed with another agency and has not been sold. In order to investigate further we would ask the consumer provide us documentation related to the account and entity she believes was paid for this account. Any documentation can be sent to Machol and Johannes LLC at [redacted] or faxed to [redacted].
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com Complaint. The consumer states that he financed a vehicle for his spouse and his brother co-signed for the loan. The consumer has since separated from his spouse. The consumer obtained a...
separation agreement in which his ex-spouse agreed to make payments on the loan. However, pursuant to [redacted], [redacted], “The trial court has jurisdiction to enter orders only as between the parties and cannot affect the rights of a third-party creditor.” See [redacted], [redacted] (court can apportion tax liabilities between the parties even though collection efforts by the Internal Revenue Service would be joint and several). As our firm’s client was not a party to the consumer's dissolution proceedings, our client’s rights were not affected by Defendant’s dissolution proceedings. Thus, Defendant remains liable for the debt. We encourage the consumer to contact us directly to discuss how we may further assist in resolution of this matter.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/11/09) */
As a Compliance Attorney for [redacted] and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer's Revdex.com Complaint. Our firm properly served the consumer with a Summons and Complaint on April 10th 2008 by leaving the Summons and Complaint with a...
family member over the age of 18 at the consumer's usual place of abode. The manner of service is allowable under Colorado State law. The consumer failed to file an Answer and judgment entered May 12 2008. The judgment was for $5,376.61 with interest to accrue at the contractual rate of 18%. During this time period, we received multiple phone calls from the consumer, but he failed to set up any payment arrangements or make any payments on the account. Consumer made no voluntary payments on the debt and as the judgment remained unsatisfied our office sought to have the judgment revived. Our office served the consumer with the request for reviver of judgment on April 17, 2014. On April 24, 2014, the consumer filed an objection to our request. A hearing was scheduled on the matter. The consumer then withdrew his objection and agreed to set up payments on the judgment. Our office agreed to accept $50.00 a month on the judgment in exchange for ceasing further collection activity. The consumer failed to make timely payments and stopped making payments altogether after February 19, 2015. Thus, a garnishment was properly served in this matter after default on the part of the consumer on June 23, 2015. Since the issuing of the garnishment our staff has explained that the consumer is not eligible for a reduction of debt or garnishment at this time. However, our firm prides itself on reaching amicable solutions with consumers. Thus, our firm has agreed to review the consumer's financial situation after six months of receiving steady payments. We encourage the consumer to reach out to us again at that time.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/11/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The statement about leaving the summons with a family member is incorrect and a lie. During the time in question I lived alone in a secure building to only I had the code where I could only let people in from my cell phone answering the buzz and I am the only one who has access to my phone. This means that they illegally entered my place of residence. Again, I asked the firm if they would garnish me fot S500 a month and they declined. The consequences I have to suffer? I have someone else supporting my child and xant afford to pay my other bills.
This company is worse than the IRS.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2015/11/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I did not have an opportunity to dispute the original service. What this firm did was to garnish my wages first and then in court, after garnishing my paycheck asked me if I wanted to dispute. They told me that my check would continue to be garnished until I agreed to a payment plan. So I agreed just to get the garnishment lifted which they did. So for lack of better words I was forced to make a payment plan and then they reimbursed me what they garnished and I have proof of this as well. The firm sent me a check for what they garnished..
Again, I was never served and was conived into getting on a plan.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/12/01) */
I have reviewed the consumer's file, and as previously stated the consumer filed an objection to our request for reviver of judgment on April 24, 2014. In his objection he objected to the original service of the action. A hearing was scheduled on the matter based off his objection. Therefore, the consumer did have an opportunity to dispute the service at the hearing set on this matter. Rather the consumer chose to withdraw his objection and set up payments on the judgment. This agreement was effectuated in open court, the consumer freely entered into the agreement. As the consumer's wage garnishment is set to expire this month, I encourage him to contact our office directly to make voluntary arrangements on the judgment.
As the Compliance Attorney for Machol & Johannes, LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed [redacted] complaint and investigated the allegations therein. Ms. [redacted] alleges that she was served while she was engaged in an active payment arrangement. Further, Ms. [redacted] claims that M&J...
has been rude and unresponsive to her. Response: LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) is the current owner of the account relevant to this complaint. On September 22, 2016, LVNV placed the account for collection with M&J and the internal account number assigned is [redacted]. M&J sent the consumer an initial demand letter on September 27, 2016. In November of 2016, M&J and the consumer engaged in negotiations regarding the subject debt. On or about December 21, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to pay towards the balance in monthly installments. The consumer began making monthly payments as per terms of the agreement until she defaulted on December 10, 2017. Per the terms of the agreement, if the consumer defaulted, no notice of nonpayment would be sent before M&J continued pursuit of the debt. Thus, suit was filed in Denver County Court, State of Colorado, Case No. 18C53365 and service was effected on February 3, 2018. On February 23, 2018, the agent assigned to Ms. [redacted] account left her a voicemail message. There is no indication in our records that M&J received a call from the consumer on February 28, 2018 as alleged. On March 9, 2018, M&J received an inbound call from the consumer during which she asked to speak with her assigned agent and the call was transferred to his voicemail. Our records do not support the consumer’s contention that M&J was unresponsive or rude to her. On March 9, 2018, M&J received the final payment satisfying the payment agreement and the account was closed. Further, a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice was filed with the Court on March 14, 2018. Thank you.
As the Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed [redacted] complaint and investigated the allegations therein. Ms. [redacted] alleges that she requested validation of debt (“VOD”) on multiple occasions but M&J has been unresponsive. Moreover, Ms....
[redacted] states that phone number she has for M&J goes straight to a message stating the number is unavailable. Ms. [redacted] states that she received a settlement letter from M&J while her bank account is actively being garnished. Response: Discover Bank (“DB”) is the current owner of the judgment account relevant to this complaint. On June 17, 2015, the DB placed the judgment account for collection with M&J and the internal account number assigned is [redacted]. M&J filed a substitution of counsel in the Teller County Court, State of Colorado, Case No. [redacted] and sent an initial notice letter to the consumer including the substitution of counsel information on August 18, 2015. On August 27, 2015, M&J received a written dispute via facsimile from the consumer requesting validation of debt (“VOD”). On that same date, M&J notated the disputed status of the account and placed collection activity on hold. On September 15, 2015, M&J sent VOD with a copy of the Court entered judgment in accordance with her request. Please note that M&J never received a subsequent dispute or request for VOD. On September 23, 2016, M&J filed a Motion for Revivor of Judgment. The consumer was served with a Notice to Show Caused why the Judgment should not be revived. The consumer filed a response thereto on October 27, 2016 opposing the Motion and the Court set a hearing on the matter for December 8, 2016. The consumer failed to appear and the Court reresvived the judgment. Since the judgment was revived, M&J has made several garnishment attempts but they were all unsuccessful and M&J has not received any funds towards the balance of the account to date. On February 4, 2018, as mentioned in the consumer’s complaint, M&J sent the consumer a settlement offer letter, but it has not been in contact with the consumer directly. M&J encourages the consumer to contact the agent handling her account, [redacted], directly at (303)302-6429. Re: [redacted], Rhonda – Second Round, LP Second Round, LP (“SR”) is the current owner of the account relevant to this complaint. On June 13, 2014, the former owner of the account Stellar Recovery, Inc. placed the account for collection with M&J and the internal account number assigned is 50401203. M&J sent the consumer an initial demand letter on June 16, 2014. On June 25, 2014, M&J received a written dispute letter from the consumer requesting VOD. On that same date, M&J notated the disputed status of the account and placed collection activity on hold. On July 3, 2014, M&J sent a letter in response to the consumer in accordance with her request. . Suit was then filed against the consumer in Teller County Court, State of Colorado, Case No. 2014C30206 on July 25, 2014 and service was effected on August 12, 2014. The consumer failed to answer, appear or otherwise respond to the lawsuit. Thus, on October 29, 2014, the Court granted default judgment against the consumer in the amount of $4,549.04, plus statutory post-judgment interest at a rate of 8% per annum. Since the judgment was obtained, M&J has made several garnishment attempts but they were all unsuccessful and M&J has not received any funds towards the balance of the account to date. M&J filed a motion with the Court on behalf of SR to substitute plaintiff. The motion went unopposed and the Court granted the motion on October 6, 2016. There is no indication in our records that M&J sent the consumer a settlement letter in relation to this account, but we encourage the consumer to contact her accounts agent, Dudley Witt, to discuss payment options at (303)302-6426. Further, there is no indication in our notes that the consumer has ever sent a request for VOD or dispute other than the initial dispute received on June 25, 2014. Please feel free to contact me if you should have any additional concerns.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the debt collector in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
The debt collector has labeled the false inquiries as disputed, therefore, they must provide verification of the alleged debt and judgment for my review. I continue to claim the debt collector is in violation of FDCPA regulation.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaint. The consumer claims that our firm is double-charging him for his student loans, as his Federal Student Loans have been consolidated and he denies taking any private student loans. Shortly...
after his accounts were placed with our office, Mr. [redacted] called our office on September 9, 2015 to discuss a payment plan or settlement. He was informed of the approved monthly or lump sum payment options. However, he did not follow up to make an arrangement. As no agreement was reached, we verified the balance with our client and our office determined that the account was appropriate for suit. On November 8, 2015, Mr. [redacted] was personally served with suit. He contacted our office after the service and entered into a Court Ordered Stipulation for a monthly payment plan; he has since made timely monthly payments. Mr. [redacted] contacted our office on April 20, 2016, and indicated that he received calls from a third party agency regarding the student loans that he is paying with our office. Mr. [redacted] sent in documentation from the third party agency, but our office determined the documentation was for different loans. Pursuant to his dispute and request for documentation, our firm sent a letter in verification of debt, including a signed copy of the original loan request. Pursuant to my review, it appears that Machol and Johannes has acted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. However, I encourage Mr. [redacted] to contact us directly if there is anything further our office can provide in resolution of this matter.
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaint. In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] complained that our firm issued a garnishment that has caused her financial hardship. Additionally, she states that the firm has been non-responsive to her...
complaints. She has requested the funds returned to her and asks for the balance owed. Judgment entered against Ms. [redacted] on September 17, 2010. On or around January 26, 2011 Ms. [redacted] entered into a payment arrangement with Machol and Johannes. However, she defaulted on her agreement in November, 2011 when she ceased making payments on the account. On September 11, 2015 our office issued another payment agreement to Ms. [redacted]. She made a single payment on the agreement and again ceased making payments on the file. On July 22, 2017, as Ms. [redacted] had failed to make reasonable efforts on the account our office revived the judgment against Ms. [redacted]. On December 29, 2017, we served a lawful garnishment to Ms. [redacted]’s bank. After the garnishment, we attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] by phone. Ms. [redacted] has requested that we speak to her via email. However, the account representative’s ability to communicate via email are limited. Nonetheless, we were able to issue Ms. [redacted] a statement as to her current balance. Additionally, if she wishes to set up another voluntary arrangement she may do so by reaching out our office directly.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
As the Compliance Attorney for Machol and [redacted] LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed [redacted] complaint and investigated the allegations therein. Mr. [redacted] alleges M&J auto-deducted two payments in lieu of the one final agreed upon payment resolving the account in full. ...
Further, Mr. [redacted] claims he has attempted to contact someone to issue a refund but has been unable to establish communication with his agent at M&J. Response: [redacted], (USA), N.A. (“[redacted]”) is the current owner of the account relevant to this complaint. On July 13, 2012, [redacted] placed the account for collection with M&J and the internal account number assigned is [redacted]. M&J sent the consumer an initial demand letter on July 16, 2012. Suit was then filed against the consumer in Arapahoe-Littleton County Court, State of Colorado, Case No. [redacted] on January 3, 2013 and service was effected on January 16, 2013. M&J and the consumer began negotiations and a stipulation for judgment upon default was executed on February 15, 2013. A copy of the signed stipulation is attached for your review. M&J received the final payment resolving the account in full on February 15, 2018. Inadvertently, two payments were taken out of the consumer’s bank on February 15, 2018. The consumer disputed the second payment with her financial institution and it debited the funds from M&J’s bank account on February 23, 2018. The funds were promptly returned electronically to the consumer. The account is now closed and a paid in full letter was sent to the consumer. Please feel free to contact me if you should have any additional concerns.
I am rejecting this response because: It seems that Macholls and Johannes does not want to resolve this situation. Macholls and Johannes did contact me by email. They said that they want a financial statement filled out before they will submit our settlement offer to their client. I am disappointed that they have not yet submitted our offer to their client (we have made three separate settlement offers dating back to March 2016) and I am disappointed that they rejected arbitration through the Revdex.com. We attended a free legal clinic offered through the district court where Macholls and Johannes filed suit against us this week. The attorney that we spoke with advised us that Macholls and Johannes does not want to resolve this situation, that is why they ignore settlement offers, and attempts to find a mutually agreeable solution through arbitration with the Revdex.com. We have a follow up appointment with the attorney that we met with this week scheduled on January 25th. At this time we will formally retain legal counsel and file motions with the court. My sincere hope remains that Macholls and Johannes will make a real effort to resolve this matter. I also remain hopeful that they will consider arbitration through the Revdex.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]